Background
M.N.B. and A.J.R. were in a tumultuous year-long relationship that ended on October 12, 2024. Nine days later, M.N.B. sought a temporary order of protection against A.J.R. The trial court initially granted a full protective order on April 25, 2025, at a hearing where A.J.R.’s counsel requested a continuance due to work obligations, which the court denied. A.J.R. filed a motion for new trial, which was granted.
At the second hearing on June 13, 2025, with both parties present, the trial court found that both M.N.B. and A.J.R. engaged in “extremely toxic behavior” during their relationship. The court determined that A.J.R. posed no credible physical threat, that their physical altercations “went both ways” and were “very minor,” and that neither battery, assault, nor stalking had occurred. However, the court concluded that A.J.R. engaged in harassment by sending voluminous calls and texts after the relationship ended, and entered the full order of protection.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the protective order. The court held that while A.J.R. engaged in repeated communication with M.N.B. after their breakup and prior to service of the temporary order, such conduct alone—though “annoying and boorish”—did not constitute harassment under the Adult Abuse Act. Under Missouri law, harassment requires conduct that causes “substantial emotional distress” to a reasonable person, defined as “a considerable or significant amount of emotional distress markedly greater than the level of uneasiness, nervousness, unhappiness or the like which are commonly experienced in day to day living.”
The appellate court emphasized the trial court’s own specific findings that there was no credible physical threat, no stalking, and that both parties engaged in reciprocal toxic behavior. These findings undercut the harassment determination. The court noted that repeated communication by itself “typically does not rise to the level of harassment” and concluded that the evidence did not meet the statutory threshold, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Repeated calls and texts after a relationship ends, standing alone, do not constitute harassment under Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act without evidence of substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person.
- Trial courts must apply the statutory definition of “substantial emotional distress” rigorously; annoyance or being bothered by contact falls short of the standard.
- When a trial court finds no credible physical threat, no stalking, and reciprocal “toxic behavior,” those findings are inconsistent with and undermine a harassment-based protective order.
- The public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies to expired protective orders, allowing appellate review of important recurring issues in domestic abuse cases.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that Missouri courts must strictly apply the “substantial emotional distress” standard when evaluating harassment claims under the Adult Abuse Act. While protective orders are critical tools for victims, they cannot be based solely on repeated communication that, however unwelcome, does not rise to the level of causing substantial distress to a reasonable person. The decision protects against overreach while preserving the availability of protective orders for genuine abuse situations.
For practitioners, the case underscores that findings of “no credible physical threat” and “no stalking” create significant tension with a harassment-based protective order and may be grounds for reversal. The opinion also affirms that appellate courts will review expired protective orders when they raise recurring issues of public importance in domestic relations law.